Sidney Powell... well... keep the fragile stuff away when you read this

[Jimmy Higgins]

Right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell is claiming in a new court filing that reasonable people wouldn't have believed as fact her assertions of fraud after the 2020 presidential election.

...

In a new court filing, Powell's attorneys write that she was sharing her "opinion" and that the public could reach "their own conclusions" about whether votes were changed by election machines.

"Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump," Powell's defense lawyers wrote in a court filing on Monday.

"Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims.' They are repeatedly labelled 'inherently improbable' and even 'impossible.' Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process."

Are you *bleeping* kidding me?! I mean yes, I get it, if she and her lawyers don't lie about her lying, she is liable, pretty much dead to rights in the lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems. That they take this route means they fear "free speech" isn't going to cut it.

Release the Kraken anyone?!

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, at the very least they are admitting to frivolous lawsuits. Should get her automatically disbarred at the bare minimum.

 

[Swammerdami]

I know that cable-TV liars like Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson have defended themselves in court by alleging that their opinions are just "entertainment." But now lawyers lawyering for the Republioturds are, in effect, adopting the same defense? Just when it seems impossible for things to get even more surreal, reality out-parodies egregious fiction.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, does the part where her lawyers state (my emphasis): "Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process." mean they are saying Red Hats are idiots?

 

[untermensche]

She is culpable in the violent Capitol treason.

A traitor. Deliberately lying about election results and getting the unreasonable very upset.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Even if the court doesn't wind up disbarring her over this, it's not really an effective defense. I mean "I was lying through my teeth about this and no one should have been dumb enough to believe me" is fine if you're a TV personality. But admitting that's what you were doing, in a court, as defense against a lawsuit that is basically accusing you of lying through your teeth strikes me as an own goal of epic proportions.

 

[Gun Nut]

So, at the very least they are admitting to frivolous lawsuits. Should get her automatically disbarred at the bare minimum.

disbarred? Her tongue should be cut out and buried like toxic waste.

 

[ronburgundy]

Trump's lawyer admits lying and that Trump supporters are not reasonable persons

Sydney Powell, Trump's campaign lawyer has filed a motion to dismiss the defamation suit brought against her by claiming that "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements [she made about widespread voter fraud] were truly statements of fact".
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2021/03/22/facing-defamation-sidney-powell-says-no-reasonable-person-thought-her-election-fraud-claims-were-fact/?slreturn=20210224114742


It is beyond any doubt that millions of Trump supporters did believe the things she said, with thousands willing to commit treason and dozens willing to commit violent assault and murder over it. Thus, she implicitly is admitting that Trump supporters are not reasonable persons. While that assumption is true and there is a mountain of evidence to support it, it will be interesting whether she'd be willing to present that evidence proving their lack of reasonableness in court, or whether the court would be willing to conclude that millions of American voters not formally diagnosed with mental illness can be treated by the law as "not reasonable persons".

If the court finds someone is "not a reasonable person" under a defamation suit, could that be used as evidence of their mental unfitness in general, such a with power of attorney issues, parental rights, etc.?

 

[TomC]

There's a bunch of people I'd like to see brought in as witnesses.
Asked, under oath, "Do you agree with Ms Powell on the mental condition of the supporters who believed what she said in multiple public statements?"
Tom

 

[RVonse]

What Im wondering is how Powell thought she could have ever got away with spreading her lies. What was her motivation? What would be her payoff? Some kind of under the table bribe?

 

[TomC]

What Im wondering is how Powell thought she could have ever got away with spreading her lies. What was her motivation? What would be her payoff? Some kind of under the table bribe?

My guess is that she's one of the low functioning people who truly did believe, in a profoundly cognitive dissonance sort of way.
Never underestimate the power of denial.
Tom

 

[Ford]

What Im wondering is how Powell thought she could have ever got away with spreading her lies. What was her motivation? What would be her payoff? Some kind of under the table bribe?

There are people - the My Pillow guy, for example - who actually believe this stuff. Trump himself appears to believe the election was "stolen" from him. After reviewing some of her statements, I'm thinking Powell might be one of the "true believers." She's changing her tune now that she's staring down a defamation suit that has her dead to rights. Plus, she didn't just push these wacko conspiracy theories in the media. She filed them in court...including the Supreme Court.

Someone on her staff or in her orbit apparently reminded her that courts generally take a dim view of attorneys who file false claims, and now she's trying to dig herself out of a kraken-sized hole.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What Im wondering is how Powell thought she could have ever got away with spreading her lies. What was her motivation? What would be her payoff? Some kind of under the table bribe?

I think they forgot. The right-wing has been slanderous for decades, but they targeted public targets, targets where defamation is a world record pole vault. But they forgot that, and so they defamed a private entity, forgetting the rules aren't remotely the same.

 

[TomC]

What Im wondering is how Powell thought she could have ever got away with spreading her lies. What was her motivation? What would be her payoff? Some kind of under the table bribe?

I think they forgot. The right-wing has been slanderous for decades, but they targeted public targets, targets where defamation is a world record pole vault. But they forgot that, and so they defamed a private entity, forgetting the rules aren't remotely the same.

Pretty much this.
The GOP lying and slandering kinda got away from them.
Tom

 

[TomC]

So, at the very least they are admitting to frivolous lawsuits. Should get her automatically disbarred at the bare minimum.

It does rather seem like this could be ended by a simple, unambiguous, question from the judge.
"So, Ms Powell, you knew your statements concerning the plaintiff were demonstrably false? Remember, you are under oath."

Tom

 

[ronburgundy]

There's a bunch of people I'd like to see brought in as witnesses.
Asked, under oath, "Do you agree with Ms Powell on the mental condition of the supporters who believed what she said in multiple public statements?"
Tom

It's plausible she's a true believer just denying her beliefs to evade the lawsuit. But it's also
plausible that she has hopes for GOP elected office or a judicial appointment, and was hoping that pandering to the Trump cult about he stolen election would be sufficient to achieve that. In fact, it likely would be sufficient in most states were Trump won handily. Fortunately for those aspirations, most of the people she is insulting with her current argument are not smart enough to know they are being insulted.

 

[jab]

So, does the part where her lawyers state (my emphasis): "Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process." mean they are saying Red Hats are idiots?

I thought courts tried claims of fact; if so Powell was presenting these "claims" as facts.

 

[jab]

There's a bunch of people I'd like to see brought in as witnesses.
Asked, under oath, "Do you agree with Ms Powell on the mental condition of the supporters who believed what she said in multiple public statements?"
Tom

Remember, we have Trump believing her claims, in that "shall we declare martial law" meeting. So she holds that he's not a reasonable person. I do hope the plaintiffs get to depose her.

 

[TomC]

There's a bunch of people I'd like to see brought in as witnesses.
Asked, under oath, "Do you agree with Ms Powell on the mental condition of the supporters who believed what she said in multiple public statements?"
Tom

Remember, we have Trump believing her claims, in that "shall we declare martial law" meeting. So she holds that he's not a reasonable person. I do hope the plaintiffs get to depose her.

Actually, Trump is one of the people I'd like to see asked about his opinions concerning her statements.
Under oath.
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

It would be nice to think that a meaningful slice of Trumpistan would look at her pleading and think, "Umm, all that stuff about how we've been gaslit by this crowd...here it is....they had me!"
But. Nahhhhh. I doubt that Fox News and similar sources gave much (or any) space to the story.